Reeves's red-blue-and-yellow Superman costume was originally brown-gray-and-white, so that it would photograph in appropriate gray tones on black-and-white film.

They started filming in color the third year.

I recall this being mentioned in the 2006 movie about George Reeve's death investigation, "Hollywoodland".

Quote:

Originally Posted by stahta01

I remember my little sister always wanting to watch the Wizard of Oz; she saw it on the B&W TV so many times; she thought it had been colorized when she saw in at college in color. I still think she say it in color once or twice at home.

Weren't the Kansas scenes at the beginning and end of "The Wizard of Oz" shot in B&W, but the Oz scenes were in color? Or was that an artistic colorization choice done by someone after the fact?

__________________To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think there is a huge difference between a B & W movie directed by a masterful craftsman and B & W TV shows and especially comedies like I Love Lucy. There was no subtlety of lighting or shadows. Pretty much they wanted everything lit brightly for the primitive TV equipment both on the production side and the viewer side.

I agree. TV was limited to B&W back in the 50's and early 60's because color TV hadn't saturated the market yet. Colorized TV may not be quite as bad as I suggested, but it all depends on how well they do it. I grew up watching a lot of shows in B&W and it just seems like an injustice to screw with many of them.

Quote:

But, yeah, I couldn't watch Casablanca, or It's a Wonderful Life, or Citizen Kane in color.

I wouldn't even consider watching a classic B&W movie that's been colorized. It's sacrilige, plain and simple. Many of the classics, especially most of the old horror films, would be ruined by colorizing them. They just don't have the same feel as they would in the original B&W. Although rare, there are a number of movies still shot in B&W to get the lighting effects only available in a monochome image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdbdigital

It was MGM Studios. I was working for Ted at the time. We all thought he was nuts to stick his neck out so far financially at the time. But, what did we know? We were just concerned with our paychecks.

Ted had some very creative financial "wizards" behind him. I remember that when the company was putting all its' assets and cash flow into building CNN, the accountants told us they were making payroll with the profits from the literally millions of Slim Whitman albums we were selling on SuperStation17.

Ted did love to colorize old movies. His favorite was Casablanca.

He should be drawn and quartered for colorizing Casablanca. Somebody should have just given him a coloring book and a box of Crayolas so he could play with them in his private box during the Braves' games while Jane Fonda nodded off. He may have built CNN, but it's become a laughing stock of the news industry.

Just for a hoot, I took my wife to a Slim Whitman concert at Prince Georges County Fair in MD about 25 years ago. I had to see for myself this guy who sold more albums in the UK than Elvis and the Beatles combined (I remember the SW commercials quite well ). I don't think there were more than 200 people in the entire audience. The opening C&W act was absolutely horrendous to the point of being laughable. Slim was actually quite entertaining and I enjoyed the show. He had his son on stage with him who was a complete moron. He sang a couple of songs and then spent five minutes waving to the audience as he slowly exited stage left.

Weren't the Kansas scenes at the beginning and end of "The Wizard of Oz" shot in B&W, but the Oz scenes were in color?

Yes.

__________________
The TOS for the Internet clearly notes there will be people who display their ignorance without giving any warning and indeed are likely unaware they are displaying their ignorance for all to see.

I agree. TV was limited to B&W back in the 50's and early 60's because color TV hadn't saturated the market yet. Colorized TV may not be quite as bad as I suggested, but it all depends on how well they do it. I grew up watching a lot of shows in B&W and it just seems like an injustice to screw with many of them.

I agree. The first time I saw Herman Munster in color it just looked SO wrong. Then again, we have many shows of that era that were originally in B&W and then moved over to color (Bewitched, I Dream of Jeanie to name a couple). It's interesting to note that we don't have the same qualms about porting our SD shows over to HD. It's kind of the 21st Century of the same thing.

Quote:

I wouldn't even consider watching a classic B&W movie that's been colorized. It's sacrilige, plain and simple. Many of the classics, especially most of the old horror films, would be ruined by colorizing them. They just don't have the same feel as they would in the original B&W. Although rare, there are a number of movies still shot in B&W to get the lighting effects only available in a monochome image.

I would never watch those classic B&W movies in color. I think those were meant to be in B&W, and some were shot when color was available (yes, I know in many cases it was cost). Again, they just look wrong.

I agree. The first time I saw Herman Munster in color it just looked SO wrong. Then again, we have many shows of that era that were originally in B&W and then moved over to color (Bewitched, I Dream of Jeanie to name a couple).

In terms of sitcoms, here are the ones I can think of, besides the two you mentioned:The Beverly Hillbillies
Petticoat Junction
Gilligan's Island
My Three Sons
The Lucy Show
The Andy Griffith Show
Gomer Pyle, USMC
F Troop
and one I'm not sure about: Please Don't Eat the Daisies

Also, the pilot to Hogan's Heroes (which did air regularly in syndication) was in black & white, although the rest of the series was in color.

In terms of sitcoms, here are the ones I can think of, besides the two you mentioned:The Beverly Hillbillies
Petticoat Junction
Gilligan's Island
My Three Sons
The Lucy Show
The Andy Griffith Show
Gomer Pyle, USMC
F Troop
and one I'm not sure about: Please Don't Eat the Daisies

Also, the pilot to Hogan's Heroes (which did air regularly in syndication) was in black & white, although the rest of the series was in color.

When I grew up, I had a BW TV. When I got color, it seemed strange how some eps of those shows were BW and some color. I don't remember all of them, but I do remember Gilligan, Bewitched, and Jeannie having both BW & color eps.

Weren't the Kansas scenes at the beginning and end of "The Wizard of Oz" shot in B&W, but the Oz scenes were in color?

Technically, the Kansas scenes are sepia tone, not black-and-white.

For many years, though, the TV print of "The Wizard of Oz," the one which was broadcast annually, had the Kansas scenes literally in black-and-white. I remember it being made a big deal when the sepia coloring was "restored" for the TV broadcast -- might have been for the 50th anniversary (1989).

__________________
trainman isTo view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For many years, though, the TV print of "The Wizard of Oz," the one which was broadcast annually, had the Kansas scenes literally in black-and-white. I remember it being made a big deal when the sepia coloring was "restored" for the TV broadcast -- might have been for the 50th anniversary (1989).

All of the film was technically filmed in B&W. The media that was used was B&W film.

To me anyway, getting my first HDTV felt the same to me as my parents getting their first color TV. There was little content outside of a few shows and gradually over time replacing the old format.

I don't hear for instance any big issues with porting old SD shows like Seinfeld into a wide screen format the way we do about colorizng B&W. Nobody thinks it's abnormal, or looks funny, or just wrong.

He should be drawn and quartered for colorizing Casablanca. Somebody should have just given him a coloring book and a box of Crayolas so he could play with them in his private box during the Braves' games while Jane Fonda nodded off. He may have built CNN, but it's become a laughing stock of the news industry.

Ted caught a tremendous amount of resistance and protest to his colorizing of old movies. I think that's why he finally stopped.

CNN is a very small shadow of its' former self. It's really sad in a way, and what most people don't know is the the downfall started when Ted was forced out of the company by the AOL Time Warner merger. With Ted gone, the vision was gone, and the new execs just screwed with everything until CNN went down the tubes. This is a common topic of discussion in the CNN Alumni group on Facebook. A lot of the original employees are quite irritated with what has been done to CNN. I think any hope for recovery is too late; CNN is too far gone to save. I give it only a few more years.

It's the next progression in TV, that's what I meant. This is the progression I think of with TV tech. Small B&W pictures Larger B*W pictures as TV's popularity grew Color replacing B&W Solid state TVs replacing tube TVs improving picture quality (the end of rolling TV pictures and such) Stereo TV RP TVs (first large screen TVs) (the above two might be reversed) Wide screen TVs HDTV and flat screens To me anyway, getting my first HDTV felt the same to me as my parents getting their first color TV. There was little content outside of a few shows and gradually over time replacing the old format. I don't hear for instance any big issues with porting old SD shows like Seinfeld into a wide screen format the way we do about colorizng B&W. Nobody thinks it's abnormal, or looks funny, or just wrong.

I believe some of those shows were actually done in widescreen but cropped for showing in SD.

Again, the difference would be altering after. There is a huge contingent of OAR advocates. I am one. But the change from OAR is often forgiven if it was part of the original vision.

OAR? Why couldn't you use the full phrase along with the acronym before resorting to the acronym alone? Not everybody here has access to your brain.

Since you asked so nicely...

Original Aspect Ratio

__________________
The TOS for the Internet clearly notes there will be people who display their ignorance without giving any warning and indeed are likely unaware they are displaying their ignorance for all to see.

if DesiLu could have afforded to shoot color film, would they have? or did they shoot B&W because at the time color television hadn't even fully developed?

There's a whole development of broadcasting to consider. The earliest TV shows were broadcast live with B&W cameras. It took some time to figure out how to even record a show just so there was a copy. Forget rebroadcasting something. Eventually they figured out how to broadcast something that was on film. My point is there were processes involved before they started using film. (forget color film)

Ted caught a tremendous amount of resistance and protest to his colorizing of old movies. I think that's why he finally stopped.

CNN is a very small shadow of its' former self. It's really sad in a way, and what most people don't know is the the downfall started when Ted was forced out of the company by the AOL Time Warner merger. With Ted gone, the vision was gone, and the new execs just screwed with everything until CNN went down the tubes. This is a common topic of discussion in the CNN Alumni group on Facebook. A lot of the original employees are quite irritated with what has been done to CNN. I think any hope for recovery is too late; CNN is too far gone to save. I give it only a few more years.

In a way CNN's situation is similar to what happened to Apple after Jobs, the company's visionary was forced out. The "suits" only vision is making money and with CNN (as with Apple) it couldn't be sustained without a clear vision as to what the company should be. You wonder if Ted was allowed back in, assuming he'd even want to do it, if he could turn CNN around.

if DesiLu could have afforded to shoot color film, would they have? or did they shoot B&W because at the time color television hadn't even fully developed?

Were there even enough color sets in that era to make it worth the expense? It's totally different than movies where a theater owner would probably have projectors that could handle color and B&W because there have been both for years. I don't think color TV even took off until the early to mid 1960s. It would have been pointless to go to the expense for DesiLu.

however, Desi Arnez insisted on doing the show on film, likely so it would be easier to distribute, physically, wherever he wanted. 'I Love Lucy' was one of the first worldwide syndication mega-successes (remember the scene from 'Crocodile Dundee').
If there had been color at the time, Arnez would have shot in color, and likely wouldn't mind the colorization updating for future compatibility. I mean it's all about her red hair, yeah?
But like a lot of people, I personally think you change history when you start mucking with these things. It's a paradox

however, Desi Arnez insisted on doing the show on film, likely so it would be easier to distribute, physically, wherever he wanted. 'I Love Lucy' was one of the first worldwide syndication mega-successes (remember the scene from 'Crocodile Dundee').
If there had been color at the time, Arnez would have shot in color, and likely wouldn't mind the colorization updating for future compatibility. I mean it's all about her red hair, yeah?
But like a lot of people, I personally think you change history when you start mucking with these things. It's a paradox

I was just reading up on this. I knew that Kinescopes were the process they used to record shows during the early years. The quality was really horrible and was the reason I Love Lucy was the first show filmed. I hadn't realized that.

Change to 35 mm film broadcasts
Filmed programs were also used in television’s early years, although they were generally considered inferior to the big-production "live" programs because of their lower budgets and loss of immediacy. This, however, was about to change.
In 1951, the stars and producers of the Hollywood-based television series I Love Lucy, Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball, decided to shoot their show directly onto 35 mm film using the three-camera system, instead of broadcasting it live. Normally, a live program originating from Los Angeles (for example, The Frank Sinatra Show) would be performed live in the late afternoon for the Eastern Time Zone, and seen on a kinescope three hours later in the Pacific Time Zone. But as an article in American Cinematographer explained,
In the beginning there was a very definite reason for the decision of Desilu Productions to put I Love Lucy on film instead of doing it live and having kinescope recordings carry it to affiliate outlets of the network. The company was not satisfied with the quality of kinescopes. It saw that film, produced especially for television, was the only means of ensuring top quality pictures on the home receiver as well as ensuring a flawless show.[18]
The I Love Lucy decision introduced reruns to most of the American television audience, and set a pattern for the syndication of TV shows after their network runs (and later, for first-run airings via syndication) that still continues to this very day.

In a way CNN's situation is similar to what happened to Apple after Jobs, the company's visionary was forced out. The "suits" only vision is making money and with CNN (as with Apple) it couldn't be sustained without a clear vision as to what the company should be. You wonder if Ted was allowed back in, assuming he'd even want to do it, if he could turn CNN around.

I'm sure Ted would give it a try if he was allowed back in, but I don't know if even he could save CNN now. For a long time after Ted was forced out, there was a popular rumor (never confirmed) that Ted was going to start over with a new media company and a new news network. Then the AOL stock tanked and he lost most of his fortune.

All his former employees from the parent company TBS, and from CNN wanted to give this a go, and a lot of us told Ted we would go with him to start over. I personally told him this in the elevator one day at CNN Center, and he just grinned and thanked me for my loyalty. I never regretted my days at TBS, just regretted that I made the stupid decision to leave the company.

Ted has often said the two biggest regrets in his life are: 1) Losing CNN, and 2) Losing Jane Fonda.

I'm sure Ted would give it a try if he was allowed back in, but I don't know if even he could save CNN now. For a long time after Ted was forced out, there was a popular rumor (never confirmed) that Ted was going to start over with a new media company and a new news network. Then the AOL stock tanked and he lost most of his fortune.

All his former employees from the parent company TBS, and from CNN wanted to give this a go, and a lot of us told Ted we would go with him to start over. I personally told him this in the elevator one day at CNN Center, and he just grinned and thanked me for my loyalty. I never regretted my days at TBS, just regretted that I made the stupid decision to leave the company.

Ted has often said the two biggest regrets in his life are: 1) Losing CNN, and 2) Losing Jane Fonda.

Ted, quite often was looked at as a goofball but he really was a visionary. When you think about it, WTBS, the first big time "superstation" was the model for what SO many cable channels have become. And CNN, in the early days proved what 24/7 news could be. The Gulf War being it's shining moment.

For a long time there was a hefty price-premium on color vs. B&W film, so if they weren't counting on a color release it would be hard to justify. "The Long Long Trailer" (1953) starring Lucy and Desi was released to theaters in color.

Count me as one of the people irritated by changing the original aspect ratio. For SD shows shot on 35mm film, it's some combination of using portions of the 35mm frame that would have been outside the NTSC safe frame and cropping the top/bottom, and/or stretching the image.

The first messes up the director's framing choices. Shot choices (tight, wide, two-shots) are very much part of the filmmaking process and part of the storytelling. Cropping just makes it look like an amateur photographer cutting off the top of everyone's heads.

There's also often studio clutter outside the NTSC frame -- lights, the edges of sets, etc.

When I grew up, I had a BW TV. When I got color, it seemed strange how some eps of those shows were BW and some color. I don't remember all of them, but I do remember Gilligan, Bewitched, and Jeannie having both BW & color eps.

In a book about "The Dick Van Dyke Show", Carl Reiner said they strongly considered going to color in the 3rd season. But they didn't.. I think due to cost.

Also, even though nowadays many of those old shows aren't broadcast as much as they used to be (though you could probably argue that TV reruns are in the same "look at 20 years ago" thing that culture seems to do generally), later in the "substantial reruns" of those shows (my term, just when they were more popularly rerun), they would only run the color seasons and not the black and white seasons.

Not the same thing at all, but there's still almost a whole season of Twilight Zone episodes (season 4) that I haven't seen, because they're hour long episodes that don't rerun. I know they're considered to be much worse, but even halfways decent "new" (to me) twilight zone episodes would be awesome. But they ALSO don't seem to ever show up on the streaming sites, even though the other seasons do show up.. So at some point I may actually just buy the DVD or BluRay set (and yeah, probably all seasons, as a completist). (I think 2 eps were edited together for a "TV movie" in the late 80s or early 90s.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by waynomo

There's a whole development of broadcasting to consider. The earliest TV shows were broadcast live with B&W cameras. It took some time to figure out how to even record a show just so there was a copy. Forget rebroadcasting something. Eventually they figured out how to broadcast something that was on film. My point is there were processes involved before they started using film. (forget color film)

When exactly are you referring to? Do you mean literally the 1930s-1940s era of TV, or 1950s? There were kinescopes of course, literally pointing a film camera at a TV screen. (I don't know exactly how the playback of film to TV works, but of course that was done too.)